Scallywag's Simon Regan

Child Abuse

The Waterhouse Report

By Simon Regan

20 February 2000

The
fact that the Waterhouse report went as far as it did is highly
commendable, and obviously long overdue. But the trouble with any
investigation which tries to break through a 'cult of silence' is the
lingering doubts that it will ever get down to the whole full truth of
the matter. Waterhouse is probably merely the tip of the iceberg.

The
report suggests there is 'no evidence' that Freemasonry had anything to
do with the scandal. Yet there were two inadequate and inconclusive
police inquiries, including one into a senior officer, by a force in
North Wales riddled with freemasons.

There was a
consistent lack of initiative on the part of the local Clwyd CC in the
face of overwhelming evidence of consistent child abuse at Bryn Estyn,
ostensibly because the council insurers advised against any action. This
in itself insults democracy in a way that borders on the criminal. By a
policy of non-action, both the police and the council became embroiled
in a blatant cover-up.

Anyone who has even vaguely
become acquainted with paedophilia knows very well that they will go to
the ends of the earth to keep their activities absolutely secret. They
are professional experts in covering their tracks.

In
the early nineties, in the now defunct Scallywag magazine, which I
founded, we interviewed in some depth twelve former inmates at Bryn
Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring, which
the tribunal acknowledges existed. Most of these interviews were
extremely harrowing and disturbing, but were gently and sensitively
conducted over pub lunches where the victim could relax. We subsequently
persuaded ten of them to make sworn affidavits which we proposed to use
as back up to half a dozen paedophile stories we later published.

Two
of these young men, who had been 14-years-old at the time, swore they
had been not only introduced to the paedophile ring operating in the
Crest Hotel in Wrexham but had later been escorted on three or four
occasions to an address in Pimlico where they were further abused.

We
took them separately to Pimlico and asked them to point out the
building where this had taken place. They were both positive in their
identification. It turned out to be the private flat of a well known,
and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in
some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the
'cash for questions' scandal. At the time we ran a story entitled 'Boys
for Questions' and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher
government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party,
yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

The
lobbyist was a notorious 'queen' who specialised in gay parties with a
'political mix' in the Pimlico area - most convenient to the Commons -
and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men
were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on,
including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many
from children's homes other than North Wales.

There
was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the
Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence
and named names.

Subsequently, over a rent dispute
which is still a matter of litigation, Dr. Julian Lewis, now
Conservative MP for New Forest (East) but then deputy head of research
at Conservative Central Office in Smith Square, managed to purchase the
contents of our offices, which included all our files. It had been
alleged that we owed rent, which we disputed, but under a court order
the landlords were able to change the locks and seize our assets which
included all our files, including those we had made on paedophiles. It
was apparently quite legal, but it was most certainly a dirty trick.

All
of a sudden very private information, some of it even privileged
between ourselves and our lawyer during the John Major libel action, was
being published in selected, pro-Conservative sections of the media.

Subsequently,
during a court case initiated by Lewis, I was able in my defence to
seek discovery of documents and asked to see the seized files. The
paedophile papers were missing. This is a very great shame, because Sir
Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.

I
believe that the secrecy the Establishment wraps around itself easily
equals that of the paedophiles. They really do look after each other and
quite professionally cover their tracks.

The real
trouble about exposing paedophiles is that former victims of child abuse
make lousy witnesses. By the very nature of the abuse, when they are
rudely shoved out into the wide world (one of the witnesses, Stephen
Messham, for example, was released on his sixteenth birthday on
Christmas day after two years of abuse, and had to sleep rough on the
streets for four and a half months), they are often deeply
psychologically disturbed.

Some of the extreme cases
commit suicide, many more were sexually disorientated in the worst
possible way. Some became gay prostitutes, others drug addicts, and in
nearly every case, at some stage, they needed lengthy counselling.
Marriages quickly disintegrated in psychological turmoil and a lot of
former victims had real difficulties raising their own children. There
are very few victims of child abuse who come out of it without deep
scars.

It was all very well for us to take statements
from former victims in the cosy atmosphere of a pub lunch, but put them
up against an agile and eminent QC whose sole task is to discredit them,
and they quickly crumble, even break down in tears. Many former victims
now have criminal records of some kind, owing almost exclusively to the
abuse itself, and the barrister will brutally exploit this as evidence
that the witness is unreliable and tainted. Faced with the choice of a
clearly neurotic young man who quickly falls down in the witness box,
and a smooth, experienced, erudite and often highly respected culprit,
juries tend to give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

I
watched it in the now famous Court 13 at the High Court during the
libel action between former Supt. Gordon Anglesey and Private Eye (and
others) when, despite the fact that under cross examination, Anglesey
had to admit that his evidence did not correspond with his own
notebooks, the 'other side' subsequently tore the five main prosecution
witnesses to pieces in a monumental act of judicial harassment. Like the
whole story of child abuse in North Wales and elsewhere, it broke my
heart.